Subjects: East Timor
E&OE.............
Ladies and Gentlemen, I've called this brief news conference because I want
to place on record my total rejection of the reckless statement made this
morning by the former prime minister about my role in relation to the events
that have unfolded in East Timor. I wouldn't normally do this but the statement
was so reckless. It was not only wrong, completely wrong, but it was also
in complete contradiction of something Mr Keating had said only a few weeks
ago quoted in an article by Ian Henderson in The Australian, he said,
and I quote "responsibility for what has happened in East Timor in
recent days rests unambiguously with the perpetrators of the violence, those
who are supporting them and those who should be exercising responsibility."
And that was the 11th of September of this year. And what he
said this morning on Radio National was, of course, in complete contradiction
of that.
But worse still the statement is recklessly indifferent to the national
interest because it is the kind of statement that will be used by our critics
overseas to justify inaccurate, untrue and unfair criticism of what Australia
has done. And it will be seen by some in the community as being capable
of undermining what I have regarded as bipartisan support for the deployment
of the INTERFET forces within the Australian community. Now, I think it
was not only an untrue statement but it was reckless and, most important,
it was recklessly indifferent to the national interest. Leave aside the
political differences between us. When a former Prime Minister says that
a letter written by his successor began the chain of events that led to
the tragedy which has unfolded in East Timor it's a pretty extraordinary
statement and it deserves a formal rebuke which it is now getting. And it
deserves to be seen for what it is, as something more importantly than it
misrepresenting my position, important though that is and wrong though that
claim may be, it is quite indifferent to the Australian national interest.
And I would have hoped that Mr Beazley would have emphatically repudiated
it but I'll put that aside. The important thing is that it be seen for what
it is, an inaccurate statement, a completely inaccurate statement - one
at odds with what he said only a few weeks ago but worst of all indifferent
to the national interest.
JOURNALIST:
[Inaudible].that there should be no criticism at a time like this and if
that isn't your view, what kind of criticism is legitimate?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I deal with facts, Karen. And what he said this morning was, in plain
black and white, my letter to Habibie really caused all the trouble. Well,
that is wrong, wrong, wrong. It couldn't be more inaccurate and the whole
world knows that. But worse than it being an inaccurate depiction of my
actions it's hurtful to the national interest and I'm far more concerned
about that.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, how delicate is the bilateral relationship with Indonesia
and how important is it now for the Government to rebuild or to reshape
the way the Australian Government's performance has been viewed in Indonesia
and perhaps by some other near neighbours?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the bilateral relationship is under strain. We all know that. And
it was inevitable that it would come under strain once events unfolded as
they did in East Timor and because Australia correctly took a lead in promoting
the establishment of a multinational force. Now, that was inevitable and
unavoidable and we have to live with a period of difficulty in the relationship.
It's important that that period of difficulty be managed with sensitivity,
consistent with maintaining support for the stance that we have taken. I
want a good relationship with Indonesia. Every time I get the opportunity
to do so I repeat that and I do that quite deliberately because I think
it is important. And although I have my differences with some of the stances
that have been taken in the past and some of the stances that are being
taken now by some, including some of you on this issue, I do agree, I think,
with everybody and we all agree that a good relationship between the two
countries consistent with it being on a basis of mutual respect is desirable.
JOURNALIST:
Is that harder today than it was three days ago?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't know. That's very hard to judge. All I know is it hard. Just
whether it's harder now or a bit less harder, that's very hard to make a
judgement.
JOURNALIST:
Have you received any advice that Mr Keating's comments have been used or
are going to be used against..?
PRIME MINISTER:
I haven't received any advice, no, to that effect - it's a judgement I make.
Now what I said Dennis was that they could be used. I mean if you've got
the former Prime Minister saying it was really my successor's letter to
Dr Habibie that caused a lot of the trouble, then I'd be amazed if some
people didn't try and use that against us.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible] he understands the sensitivities. Why is he doing it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you should ask him that.
JOURNALIST:
..(inaudible)..
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't think I would be regarded as the world's greatest authority
on why he does things.
JOURNALIST:
Did the National Security Committee today take any decision on what Australia
might do to advance the move towards phase three, or any decision on a possible
visit to East Timor by Mr Moore?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well let me without..as I don't normally do - go into the details of what
was discussed at those gatherings. There are no plans for any visits at
present. I was asked that question this morning on television and that remains
the position. So far as phase three is concerned it's always been part of
what we are doing to move to phase three. That's always been the intention,
and I think it's fair to say that in all the discussions that we have on
the issue that is something that is there. But of course we are still in
the peace enforcement phase and phase three is something that comes when
you are closer to the peacekeeping part of the operation.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, can you give us any indication of a time scale by when you'd
expect to move into the blue helmet phase?
PRIME MINISTER:
No it's too early Peter. When I can I'll try and do so, but it is a little
too early. We naturally don't want it to be any.the period to be any longer
than necessary. But I don't want in saying that to be construed of saying
that we're anxious to get the current phase over as quickly as possible
in the sense that, you know, we would take any short cuts. I mean there
is a certain amount of time involved in the current phase. There has to
be time allowed for that.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Beazley's released a statement some time ago saying that you had misrepresented
him this morning by suggesting that his commitment to the troops wasn't
what you believed it to be. Have you seen that statement?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look I have seen that statement, and I've had a look at the transcript
of my interview and I think Mr Beazley's done me an injustice. I think I
said on a couple of occasions during that interview that in response to
questions suggesting that he was being critical of the deployment or being
critical of the Government's policy to deploy, I said I was not taking that
view. I was taking the charitable view that he wasn't, even though he was
being critical. I said, as best I can remember it, what I said during the
interview was that although he's not criticising the deployment he's searching
around to make a political criticism or to score a political hit on me.
And I think...I beg your pardon.
JOURNALIST:
For domestic purposes one assumes.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they're your words.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible] amplify it by holding this press conference?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you know, you are damned if you do. And I thought about that. I spent
some time talking to some of my advisers about that. I know there's a danger.
The other problem is that if you don't formally reject something like this
in a way that everybody can run it unambiguously, then you know as well
as I do that something can go into the folklore. And to me it is such a
recklessly untrue statement that I would not be doing the Government, doing
the right thing by the Government nor the community if I didn't take the
opportunity of rejecting it. I mean the point is he went much further this
morning than he did yesterday. I mean yesterday he didn't actually blame
me for what has happened. But this morning he did. Now..I beg your pardon.
JOURNALIST:
How much of an influence do you believe your letter to Mr Habibie was in
subsequent events?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I believe that my letter had a very positive and beneficial influence
because it brought about a change of heart. It helped bring about a change
of heart. I don't want to overemphasise it. I mean some people have written
that it represented the catalyst. On other occasions some of my critics
have been wanting to dismiss the importance of its impact.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, should the Falantil forces be obliged to lay down their arms.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't want to answer that yes or no. What I do want to say is that
the mandate of INTERFET is to enforce peace and security and to enforce
it in an even-handed fashion. The question of how Falantil is treated on
the ground is really something to be dealt with and answered for on the
ground by those who are on the ground.
JOURNALIST:
How can you say [inaudible] not in the national interest at a time like
this, couldn't you say that about all criticism of the Government .
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, I don't. I didn't.I haven't said that Mr Beazley's unreasonable
claim that I shouldn't, in effect, that I shouldn't go out and explain the
reasons for what the Government's doing. I don't say that that is against
the national interest I just say that it's wrong. I think it's a question
of looking at the quality of what's said. But if.I repeat that if you having
been a Prime Minister of this country say that the action of your successor
is the principal cause, or a principal cause, of all the tragedy that's
unfolded, and being a successor if you don't analyse that and correct it
I think you are failing in your job. And, I mean, I think it was.it really
went way beyond what was said yesterday. I mean, what was said yesterday
was, in my view, quite inaccurate. His claim that I was trying to score
domestic political points on this issue of course that was totally inaccurate.
But it was what I regarded as a although inaccurate political criticism
an in the groove, sort of, political criticism. But this is a quantum shift.
I mean, Mr Beazley this morning was even in a general attitude of being
reluctant to distance himself from Mr Keating, Mr Beazley at least this
morning said that he didn't hold me responsible for any of the violence
or death that had occurred in East Timor. Now, he only said that because
even he must have realised how outrageous was Mr Keating's claim.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, what state would you say in your view is the bipartisan nature
of support for the Australian commitment now following this.
PRIME MINISTER:
As far as I am concerned I have operated from the very beginning on the
basis that the troop deployment has bipartisan support. I have operated
on that basis and I have indicated that. I think what Mr Beazley tried to
do yesterday and is continuing to do, he's trying simultaneously to support
the bipartisan, support in a bipartisan way the deployment but inflict political
damage on me. Now, I mean, that's what he's endeavouring to do. Now, it's
up to him to answer for that but his statements have been of bipartisan
support. There was a resolution carried by the Parliament.
JOURNALIST:
How personally have you taken Mr Keating's comments at..
PRIME MINISTER:
Personally I am not offended by them because I expect personal attacks from
Mr Keating, I mean, I am used to it. It's part of the game. But, I mean,
I really do believe that to say that your successor's letter was really
the principal cause of everything that had happened and the character of
the interview, for me to have allowed that to go by, as some might imply,
is absurd. I mean, you can't allow an allegation like that to stand unrebuked
and it is a statement, in my view, that is not helpful of the national interests.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, does it make it harder for Australia to put more pressure
on Indonesia or on the Indonesian military to curb any actions that would
in some way slow down.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, let me put it..let me answer the question this way, Catherine, it's
really tied up with Dennis' earlier question. We all know that there were
many people in Indonesia who were opposed to what Dr Habibie did in relation
to the ballot. Now, I would think many of those people would pick up.could
pick Mr Keating's statement and say 'here you are'. It could be used. Now,
okay, you might say that's part and parcel of political exchange inside
a country but these things are.I mean, what Prime Ministers and ex-Prime
Ministers and senior Ministers and Opposition Leaders say are picked up
and commented upon and they are used. And when something is so demonstrably
inaccurate and is capable not only because of that inaccuracy but because
of the very nature of the comment, capable of being used to our disadvantage
I think I am entitled to say that it's a comment that is unhelpful in the
national interests.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, how do you characterise Mr Keating's complete speech on Sunday.where
he ticked off.
PRIME MINISTER:
I am not going to comment on that. I will leave that to the commentators
and as you know I am not a commentator.
JOURNALIST:
But his remarks about Mr Packer in particular?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am not going to get into the role of a commentator.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think Mr Keating's comments might make it difficult for Australia's
leadership of a multi-national force in East Timor? Does that relationship
between Australia and other governments [inaudible]..
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't.I haven't seen it in that light. I haven't seen any evidence
yet. That's not a view that I have really turned my mind to. I hope it doesn't.
I am not at this stage making that claim because I haven't seen any evidence
that that is likely to happen. But I do stand by the claims I made in relation
to the comment.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, should home owners be concerned or fearful if interest rates
were to rise at any point in the future?
PRIME MINISTER:
You know I never comment about the future level of interest rates.
JOURNALIST:
Rates go up and down [inaudible]. Is that a national crisis or any concern
or..
PRIME MINISTER:
I'll see you all later.
[ends]